Sehwag versus GC Smith

[Trichromatic]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

I have the examples like his 80 odd versus Eng, and so on, no? 

 

I see one example.

 

Can you list down all such rare match winning examples? Chasing 350 is rare in Indian context and so is chasing 400 in Aus.

 

Other example that I saw was 293 v SL. It was rare knock wrt how it was played, not a rare match winning example. India wins v SL with or without such knocks.

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Sehwag averages 46 in Australia and didn't faced McGrath, Warne, Lee together 2003, 2008 and 2012 series. 

 

Even Smith averaged 65 and 42 against weaker attacks in Aus. He also scored 7 50s+ scores in 12 innings. Sehwag did same in 20 innings for India.

 

Also scored at SR of 73 to chase big total of 400+. Why would not pick Smith even in Aus.

Because the discussion is on who would you pick b/w Sehwag and Smith, and not which player to pick in which county duh!!

 

I expect my team to have players like what Smith can do and even better. Guys like Sehwag and Gilchrist provide the variety and high strike rate attacking batting to the line up. Additionally, they are good to watch too. 
 

There is no real competition for Sehwag, he is in a league of his own as a free striking high strike opener (played many knocks at over 100 SR without bat giant an eyelid) 

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

I see one example.

 

Can you list down all such rare match winning examples? Chasing 350 is rare in Indian context and so is chasing 400 in Aus.

 

Other example that I saw was 293 v SL. It was rare knock wrt how it was played, not a rare match winning example. India wins v SL with or without such knocks.

From the top of the mind recall in India, 80 odd, 293, 165, 319 (helped Ind to draw the game), and so on. 
 

Buddy, why do you discuss sports and stats? If Warne does well against SA, does it mean it means nothing as Aus usually beats SA. Gilchrist and Langer chased down a big total versus Pak. Pak has never won in Aus. Does it mean it is not rare?  .., Rare by definition is an extraordinary effort. Fortunately for India, Sehwag revilutioned test batting to give the line up a relative competitive edge! 
 

Thanks for the laughs!!

[Trichromatic]

19 minutes ago, zen said:

From the top of the mind recall in India, 80 odd, 293, 165, 319 (helped Ind to draw the game), and so on. 
 

Buddy, why do you discuss sports and stats? If Warne does well against SA, does it mean it means nothing as Aus usually beats SA. Gilchrist and Langer chased down a big total versus Pak. Pak has never won in Aus. Does it mean it is not rare?  .., Rare by definition is an extraordinary effort. Fortunately for India, Sehwag revilutioned test batting to give the line up a relative competitive edge! 
 

Thanks for the laughs!!

 

Are you saying that without 293 and 165 India wouldn't have won the games? 

 

What was so rare about those wins and match winning ability?

 

It seems you're confused about rare batting performances considering those runs were scored quickly and rare match winning ability.

 

If India has to win matches v SL, they are able to even with normal test batting.

 

When India had beaten SA, they did by dismissing them for less than 300 in first inning which itself is great effort in Indian conditions and 2 more players scored century in that match for India.

 

Heck Sehwag wasn't even MoM in that. How is it a rare match winning performance?

 

80 odd was certainly rare match winning performance with the help of SRT and Yuvi as 350 is not chased in Indian conditions. Rest all don't even fall in same category. 

[ShoonyaSifar]

Looked at Smith's record at home. Average of 41, that too boosted by his stats padding vs BD, Zimmers and WI! Didn't realise he was so bang average vs top sides at home.

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Are you saying that without 293 and 165 India wouldn't have won the games? 

 

What was so rare about those wins and match winning ability?

 

It seems you're confused about rare batting performances considering those runs were scored quickly and rare match winning ability.

 

If India has to win matches v SL, they are able to even with normal test batting.

 

When India had beaten SA, they did by dismissing them for less than 300 in first inning which itself is great effort in Indian conditions and 2 more players scored century in that match for India.

 

Heck Sehwag wasn't even MoM in that. How is it a rare match winning performance?

 

80 odd was certainly rare match winning performance with the help of SRT and Yuvi as 350 is not chased in Indian conditions. Rest all don't even fall in same category. 

To me it appears as if you do not grasp the value of high strike rate players such as Sehwag, SDP, Pant, and so on.

 

I gave the example of Laxman’s 281 which helped India come back in that series versus Aus. That is a match winning effort. But what if someone says - “what is so unique about it? Dravid scored 180 too. Bowlers picked up wkt.” 
 

Say in soccer someone scored a hat trick and said to be a match winner but what if someone said - “GK made a few saves, xyz passed the ball to him, and so on.” 
 

Talking about Laxman, he even hit a 50 odd in the following test to win India the series. Iirc Laxman-Bhajji were the last pair.  So even a 50 at the right phase can help a team. Sehwag has hit many high strike rate knocks to set India up. The guy is a freak. In around 100 tests, he has 7 scores of 190+ including 2 300s.

 

Even against Pak at B’lorr, he scored a 200 to keep India in the game. In the 4th innings, when he got out at a time when India should have drawn the game still the rest of the side folded. In SL, he scored that 200+ and was the lone man standing where most of the batsman struggled against spin. 
 

[Majestic]

41 minutes ago, zen said:

To me it appears as if you do not grasp the value of high strike rate players such as Sehwag, SDP, Pant, and so on.

 

I gave the example of Laxman’s 281 which helped India come back in that series versus Aus. That is a match winning effort. But what if someone says - “what is so unique about it? Dravid scored 180 too. Bowlers picked up wkt.” 
 

Say in soccer someone scored a hat trick and said to be a match winner but what if someone said - “GK made a few saves, xyz passed the ball to him, and so on.” 
 

Talking about Laxman, he even hit a 50 odd in the following test to win India the series. Iirc Laxman-Bhajji were the last pair.  So even a 50 at the right phase can help a team. Sehwag has hit many high strike rate knocks to set India up. The guy is a freak. In around 100 tests, he has 7 scores of 190+ including 2 300s.

 

Even against Pak at B’lorr, he scored a 200 to keep India in the game. In the 4th innings, when he got out at a time when India should have drawn the game still the rest of the side folded. In SL, he scored that 200+ and was the lone man standing where most of the batsman struggled against spin. 
 

Laxman was a bigger match winner than Sehwag in conditions where team needed his players to stood up more than others. Sehwag was a match winner in only Asian conditions but we have dozens of such cricketers every single time. Mayank for example now.

 

Basically in conditions where everyone performed, Sehwag was also a huge match winner in that.

 

But in conditions which were alien and challenging for Asian batsman, he was a liability. Guys like Laxman were bigger match winners across all conditions.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Majestic

[Lord]

Sehwag was underutilised in SEN. Would have been more useful as middle order player. But that'd require flexibility.Someone like Dravid was best suited to open in these conditions but rarely did, Instead we kept changing openers.

 

On topic, Sehwag wins on batting alone but Smith wins due to captaincy and slip catching.

 

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

19 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Laxman was a bigger match winner than Sehwag in conditions where team needed his players to stood up more than others. Sehwag was a match winner in only Asian conditions but we have dozens of such cricketers every single time. Mayank for example now.

 

Basically in conditions where everyone performed, Sehwag was also a huge match winner in that.

 

But in conditions which were alien and challenging for Asian batsman, he was a liability. Guys like Laxman were bigger match winners across all conditions.

Not really. Let's see when all 4 Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid and VVS played together in Asia - i.e. in 48 tests

Sehwag: 5019 runs@65

Dravid: 3773 runs@53

Sachin: 3429 runs@50

VVS: 3068 runs@53

 

Sehwag outscored them by 35%, 50% and 70%!! That too when he was scoring at almost 70% higher strike rate than others. In fact, if he hadn't missed Asian tests in 2006 and 2007, the gap would have been higher as he showed post his comeback in 2007-08

 

[Pollack]

Some posters are weird.

 

"They" rate a batsman high just for being a high strike rate batsman(Sehwag) in tests and at the same time preach the virtues of a grinder in tests (Pujara).

 

They judge a batsman based on his average in SENA, sometimes just one country out of it when it suits his argument (Pujara) and then completely neglects poor SENA record for other batsman (Sehwag). 

 

They club Sehwag and Hardik Pandya together in the same sentence. I can understand if someone finds Sehwag a clutch batsman in tests but what has Pandya ever done in tests to be clubbed together with Sehwag.

 

[Pollack]

38 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Laxman was a bigger match winner than Sehwag in conditions where team needed his players to stood up more than others. Sehwag was a match winner in only Asian conditions but we have dozens of such cricketers every single time. Mayank for example now.

 

Basically in conditions where everyone performed, Sehwag was also a huge match winner in that.

 

But in conditions which were alien and challenging for Asian batsman, he was a liability. Guys like Laxman were bigger match winners across all conditions.

Why everyone discussing Sehwag being a match winner or not compared to his other team mates when the discussion is about Smith vs Sehwag. 

[Trichromatic]

53 minutes ago, zen said:

To me it appears as if you do not grasp the value of high strike rate players such as Sehwag.
 

 

It seems you don't have anything tangible to support your claims.

[zen]

7 hours ago, Majestic said:

Laxman was a bigger match winner than Sehwag in conditions where team needed his players to stood up more than others. Sehwag was a match winner in only Asian conditions but we have dozens of such cricketers every single time. Mayank for example now.

 

Basically in conditions where everyone performed, Sehwag was also a huge match winner in that.

 

But in conditions which were alien and challenging for Asian batsman, he was a liability. Guys like Laxman were bigger match winners across all 

 

Overseas, opening is a tough job. I am not sure if Laxman could have made much impact if he opened … He had his phase in 2001-02 where he was batting at his best but threw his wkt away many times including in Zim … The discussion here is on openers 

 

We can do a discussion on a #5-6 subcon batsman versus a #5-6 SENA batsman. Can do a Laxman versus someone but those playing at that position for SENA are heavy weights (S Waugh for example) where Laxman would not have a chance

 

On Sehwag, there is not too many such batsman. Points made for Smith can also be made for Mark Taylor (a great captain though), Langer, or even maybe Attapatu against Sehwag, but Sehwag is likely to be in more world AT11 than these guys

Edited February 2, 2022 by zen

[Jay]

smith is better in S

smith is better in E

smith is better in N

 

shevchenkwag is better in A

shevachenkwag is better in I

better in pakistan

better in West indies 

 

difference between Sehwag in SEN vs smith in SEN is about 11 average points.

difference between Sehwag in AIPW vs smith in AIPW is about 12 average points. 

 

this isnt clear cut. its a stalemate. shewu with county experience would be better. 

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

smith is better in S

smith is better in E

smith is better in N

 

shevchenkwag is better in A

shevachenkwag is better in I

better in pakistan

better in West indies 

 

That's not how it's done. 

 

Sehwag was tailendersque in SEN, On the other hand Graeme Smith was good even in those places where Sehwag Dominated. 

 

Smith averages

45 in Lanka

45 in Pakistan

36 in India

40 in Aus facing proper attacks unlike Sehwag who faced Brad Williams. 

Also you are wrong about west Indies part, if we go by averages, Smith averages 73 in WI. 

 

Sehwag was pathetic in SEN

Averaging 

25

20

27 respectively. 

 

 

You just can't put Sehwag ahead based on all conditions stats, Smith is a proper all conditions bat, Sehwag wasn't but still he was a great match winner. 

 

[cricketfan28]

Smith, mature and classy.

[Lord]

51 minutes ago, Adamant said:

That's not how it's done. 

 

Sehwag was tailendersque in SEN, On the other hand Graeme Smith was good even in those places where Sehwag Dominated. 

 

Smith averages

45 in Lanka

45 in Pakistan

36 in India

40 in Aus facing proper attacks unlike Sehwag who faced Brad Williams. 

Also you are wrong about west Indies part, if we go by averages, Smith averages 73 in WI. 

 

Sehwag was pathetic in SEN

Averaging 

25

20

27 respectively. 

 

 

You just can't put Sehwag ahead based on all conditions stats, Smith is a proper all conditions bat, Sehwag wasn't but still he was a great match winner. 

 

 

being all conditions bat is one of the criteria. It is not everything.

 

Even Rahane has better numbers than Sehwag in SENA. Would you say he's better just on that?

 

Smith was decent at best in his home conditions where he played most of his games.Its why they used to lose games to Aus/Eng at home even during their golden period.

 

Sehwag OTOH was a beast at home/SC and one of the reasons we became no. 1 as we won lots of matches due to his onslaught. FWIW, he also dominated guys like Steyn,Warne,Murali etc on his day. Smith doesnt have such memorable knocks.

 

Its really an apples v oranges comparison though.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Lord

[zen]

One has to pick a player with a global mindset (not Indian) …  SENA teams would love to have someone like Sehwag to allow them to dominate in Asia 

 

Imagine Sehwag playing for Aus, which could have won more series in Asia. At home in Aus, Sehwag would have been great as well!

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, Lord said:

 

being all conditions bat is one of the criteria. It is not everything.

 

Even Rahane has better numbers than Sehwag in SENA. Would you say he's better just on that?

 

Smith was decent at best in his home conditions where he played most of his games.Its why they used to lose games to Aus/Eng at home even during their golden period.

 

Sehwag OTOH was a beast at home/SC and one of the reasons we became no. 1 as we won lots of matches due to his onslaught. FWIW, he also dominated guys like Steyn,Warne,Murali etc on his day. Smith doesnt have such memorable knocks.

 

Its really an apples v oranges comparison though.

I never said that Sehwag isn't a great batsman but he isn't an all conditions bat and that is true.

I am ok with people who rate Sehwag ahead of Graeme coz according to me the difference between them isn't big enough to give a landslide victory to Smith. 

In my previous posts this is how I have rated the 5 openers :

1.Smith

2.Hayden/Sehwag

3.Sehwag/Hayden

4.Cook

5.Langer.

 

[Lord]

1 minute ago, Adamant said:

I never said that Sehwag isn't a great batsman but he isn't an all conditions bat and that is true.

I am ok with people who rate Sehwag ahead of Graeme coz according to me the difference between them isn't big enough to give a landslide victory to Smith. 

In my previous posts this is how I have rated the 5 openers :

1.Smith

2.Hayden/Sehwag

3.Sehwag/Hayden

4.Cook

5.Langer.

 

 

Cook is also an all conditions bat though.